Paul

yeah, if that was your additional point, then agree 100%.

It is the e-consultancy site where the search sometimes gives the 'syntactically incorrect ....boolean interpreter'  message - but I guess we're not your joe doe consumers here, so we're not phased by jargon like boolean interpreters - so slightly naughty of me to winge... hopefully Ashley and co. will forgive :<)

Deri

On 15:57:52 1 November 2006 PaulWalsh wrote:

Deri,

Aren't we in agreement? :) My 'additional' point was to highlight the fact that too many people slate the WAI guidelines and provide blanket statements that demonstrate their lack of experience implementing them.

What site are you referring to with the search problems? If you're referring to E-consultancy then you've chosen a fine example of a site that's embracing accessibility for the long haul by making ongoing improvements...

Paul

On 15:51:00 1 November 2006 DeriJones wrote:

Paul, methinks you protest too much.

dcjarvis was only after supporting good Accessibility,

... and raising a sensible pragmatic angle - that it's the user *experience* overall that makes a profitibale/valuable website for an organisation.

Accessibility is a core part of the user experience - but not the only component.

Guess which site known to us all responds with the following if the user types in a 'wrong' search phrase:

>The keyword search expression you entered is syntactically incorrect and cannot be understood by the boolean interpreter.
>Please review your search and try again.

And in red font.

In general, we should try to praise sites moving down the accessibility road more than we do; I guess we all like to point the finger too much...

Deri

Sounds good to me :-)

On 19:36:06 2 November 2006 dcjarvis wrote:
>> It’s dangerous to make blanket statements of
>this kind as it gives
>> the wrong impression about the benefits of
>accessibility. I would
>> only expect to hear this come from a professional
>that is not
>> experienced in correct Web accessibility design
>and/or
>> evaluation methods.
>
>That's exactly my point Paul. People do often assume
>accessibility *isn't* about design, it's about good
>quality coding.
>
>That's not the full picture, and it fundamentally misses
>the point that the purpose behind making an accessible
>site is so that a wider audience (be they screenreader
>users or search engines or whatever) can actually *use*
>the content or functionality to meet their goals.
>
>Better understanding of those users, (their context,
>abilities and environment etc) and their goals is
>therefore needed to really add value.